Fake Bob Dylan Sings Real Dr. Seuss

Five years ago, a 30-some­thing music pro­duc­er from Hous­ton, Texas got a big idea. Why not take his two favorite things — Bob Dylan and Dr. Seuss, of course — and mash them up into one orig­i­nal cre­ation. Hence came Dylan Hears a Who, a mock album that took sev­en Dr. Seuss clas­sics and put them to the melodies and imi­tat­ed voice of Mr. Dylan. The cuts went viral, giv­ing Dylan-Seuss fans world­wide the chance to enjoy cre­ative takes on Green Eggs and Ham (above); The Cat in the Hat; Oh, The Thinks You Can Think! (below); Too Many Dav­es; and The Zax. Soon enough, the songs fad­ed into YouTube obliv­ion, await­ing the day when a dig­i­tal archae­ol­o­gist would come along and do an exca­va­tion. Well, today’s the day. Enjoy!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Epis­te­mol­o­gy of Dr. Seuss & More Phi­los­o­phy Lessons from Great Children’s Sto­ries

New Archive Show­cas­es Dr. Seuss’s Ear­ly Work as an Adver­tis­ing Illus­tra­tor and Polit­i­cal Car­toon­ist

Bob Dylan Clas­sic, “For­ev­er Young,” Ani­mat­ed for Chil­dren

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 5 ) |

Read Jane Austen’s Fiction Manuscripts Free Online

pride_and_prejudice12

“Cur­rent­ly, it seems, Jane Austen is hot­ter than Quentin Taran­ti­no.” Mar­tin Amis wrote this in the New York­er back in 1996, when Taran­ti­no had cul­tur­al heat to spare. Even today, as the film­mak­er rides high on anoth­er one of his peri­od­ic waves of pop-cul­tur­al exu­ber­ance and con­tro­ver­sy-court­ing vio­lence, Austen may still win the pop­u­lar­i­ty con­test. Her much-read, often-adapt­ed sec­ond nov­el Pride and Prej­u­dice has, in fact, just passed its 200th anniver­sary of pub­li­ca­tion, and its rep­u­ta­tion as a reli­ably sharp and engag­ing com­e­dy seems stronger than ever.

Espe­cial­ly strik­ing for a nov­el of its age, this rep­u­ta­tion appears to have also grown wider than ever. Though some have always dis­missed her — and will always dis­miss her — as a writer of mere roman­tic fic­tion meant sole­ly for women, admi­ra­tion for Austen knows no demo­graph­ic bound­aries. Just look at her high-pro­file liv­ing male enthu­si­asts, a group that ranges from Amis to ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist and essay­ist Paul Gra­ham, who names Austen as one of his heroes. “In her nov­els I can’t see the gears at work,” Gra­ham writes. “Though I’d real­ly like to know how she does what she does, I can’t fig­ure it out, because she’s so good that her sto­ries don’t seem made up.”

“When I was intro­duced to the nov­el, at the age of four­teen,” Amis writes of Pride and Prej­u­dice, “I read twen­ty pages and then besieged my stepmother’s study until she told me what I need­ed to know. I need­ed to know that Dar­cy mar­ried Eliz­a­beth. (I need­ed to know that Bin­g­ley mar­ried Jane.) I need­ed this infor­ma­tion as bad­ly as I had ever need­ed any­thing. Pride and Prej­u­dice suck­ers you. Amaz­ing­ly — and, I believe, unique­ly — it goes on suck­er­ing you.” And if that 200-year-old nov­el fails to suck­er you, per­haps its 202-year-old pre­de­ces­sor Sense and Sen­si­bil­i­ty or its 199-year-old suc­ces­sor Mans­field Park will. You can browse Austen’s hand-writ­ten man­u­scripts per­tain­ing to these and oth­er of her nov­els in Jane Austen’s Fic­tion Man­u­scripts, an online joint project from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Oxford and King’s Col­lege Lon­don. Austen’s fan­base, per­haps because of its broad­ness, seems to con­tain rel­a­tive­ly few obses­sive exegetes (com­pared to, say, acolytes of Thomas Pyn­chon), but you can only read her six nov­els so many times before feel­ing a need, if a vain one, to glimpse those “gears at work.” And if this con­tact with Austen’s cre­ative spir­it moves you to write your own adap­ta­tion of Pride and Prej­u­dice, why not think out­side the box and check on Taran­ti­no’s avail­abil­i­ty to direct?

Copies of Pride and Prej­u­dice can be found in our col­lec­tion of Free Audio Books and Free eBooks.

You can also down­load free audio ver­sions of Jane Austen nov­els if you take part in the free tri­al pro­grams offered by Audible.com and FreeAudioBooks.com.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Jane Austen’s Fight Club

Dominic West (aka Jim­my McNul­ty) Reads Jane Austen

Niet­zsche, Melville, Jane Austen & More: The Lat­est Audio Book Clas­sics Released by Lib­rivox

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on lit­er­a­ture, film, cities, Asia, and aes­thet­ics. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

W.H. Auden Recites His 1937 Poem, ‘As I Walked Out One Evening’

w-h-auden

Today we bring you one of the best-loved poems of W.H. Auden, “As I Walked Out One Evening,” read (below) by the poet him­self. Auden wrote the poem in 1937 and first pub­lished it in his 1940 vol­ume, Anoth­er Time. The poem is a vari­ant of the bal­lad form, made up of 15 rhymed qua­trains. It’s a med­i­ta­tion on love and the remorse­less­ness of time, told in three voic­es: the nar­ra­tor, a rap­tur­ous lover, and the reproach­ful clocks that speak back to the lover.

‘The years shall run like rab­bits,
     For in my arms I hold
The Flower of the Ages,
    And the first love of the world.’

But all the clocks in the city
    Began to whirr and chime:
‘O let not Time deceive you,
    You can­not con­quer Time

Auden made a num­ber of audio record­ings over the years, and we were unable to track down the time and place of this one. It may be a 1953 record­ing orig­i­nal­ly released by Caed­mon Records. “As I Walked Out One Evening” is includ­ed in the Ran­dom House audio col­lec­tion, Voice of the Poet: W.H. Auden.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

500 Free Audio Books: Down­load Great Books for Free 

375 Free eBooks: Down­load to Kin­dle, iPad/iPhone & Nook

Hear Tennessee Williams Read Hart Crane’s “The Broken Tower” and “The Hurricane” (1960)

Note: Audio takes about 8 sec­onds to play…

Many Moons Ago, a poet­ry teacher of mine intro­duced me to the term “ter­mi­nal aes­thet­ic,” mean­ing a style that could go no fur­ther, hav­ing burned up all of its resources. It’s a great way to char­ac­ter­ize the poet Hart Crane’s ambiva­lent appraisal of his lit­er­ary fore­fa­ther, T.S. Eliot. Crane spent his poet­ry career try­ing to rem­e­dy what he saw as Eliot’s fail­ure to sal­vage any­thing from the mod­ern world but cramped despair in The Waste Land. As Crane put it, Eliot’s mas­ter­work was “so damned dead” and man­i­fest­ed “a refusal to see cer­tain spir­i­tu­al events and pos­si­bil­i­ties.” It’s prob­a­bly safe to say that near­ly every­one sub­ject­ed to Eliot’s por­ten­tous verse has felt this way at one time or anoth­er. But Crane felt it and per­se­vered; he tried to out-write The Waste Land with his own mod­ernist epic, The Bridge.

The poet’s opti­mism was total­ly at odds with his brief, painful life. As David Dud­ley summed it up recent­ly:

Crane’s short life was a train wreck—a teenage sui­cide attempt, fol­lowed by bit­ter estrange­ments from his moth­er, a Chris­t­ian Sci­en­tist, and his father, a well-to-do Cleve­land can­dy mak­er who dis­ap­proved of his son’s habits. Liv­ing as a semi-clos­et­ed gay man on the fringes of the cul­tur­al lime­light in New York and Europe, Crane had affairs with sailors, drank too much, got in fights, and couldn’t hold a job.

Crane’s depres­sion and feel­ings of fail­ure drove him to sui­cide in 1932, at age 32: he leapt into the Gulf of Mex­i­co from the steam ship Oriz­a­ba (most think; he left no note). His tomb­stone is inscribed with the words “lost at sea.”

That phrase also cap­tures how so many read­ers feel when faced with Crane’s roco­co verse. With its archa­ic (some would say pre­ten­tious) dic­tion, and obscure allu­sions nest­ed inside oblique ref­er­ences, the word “dif­fi­cult” may be an under­state­ment. But Crane’s work has had many cham­pi­ons, among them, Ten­nessee Williams. As an epi­graph to A Street­car Named Desire, Williams chose these lines from Crane’s “The Bro­ken Tow­er”:

And so it was I entered the bro­ken world
To trace the vision­ary com­pa­ny of love, its voice
An instant in the wind (I know not whith­er hurled)
But not for long to hold each des­per­ate choice.

The exquis­ite rhythms of Crane’s lines—Shakespearean by way of Eliot—lend them­selves so well to read­ing aloud. Above, then, we have the priv­i­lege of hear­ing Crane’s defend­er Williams read “The Bro­ken Tow­er” in his reedy, South­ern voice. Fol­low the text of the poem in the video as Williams reads. Both the audio above and that below—of Williams read­ing Crane’s hyp­not­ic “The Hurricane”—come from a near­ly-impos­si­ble-to-find 1960 LP from Caed­mon Records. Thanks again, Inter­net, and thanks to Don Yorty, who post­ed these videos.

Relat­ed Con­tent

The Bro­ken Tow­er, James Franco’s Docu­d­ra­ma On “Dif­fi­cult” Poet Hart Crane: A Pre­view

Mar­lon Bran­do Opens Up to Ten­nessee Williams

British Actors Read Poignant Poet­ry from World War I

Josh Jones is a writer, edi­tor, and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him @jdmagness

Jack Kerouac’s Naval Reserve Enlistment Mugshot, 1943

kerouac mugshot

In the sum­mer of 1942, Jack Ker­ouac fol­lowed in the foot­steps of Joseph Con­rad and Eugene O’Neill and went to sea. After drop­ping out of Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty the pre­vi­ous Fall, the 20-year-old Ker­ouac signed up for the mer­chant marine and shipped out aboard the U.S. Army Trans­port ship Dorch­ester.

Although World War II had bro­ken out at about the time of his depar­ture from Colum­bia, Ker­ouac’s motives for going to sea were more per­son­al than patri­ot­ic. “My moth­er is very wor­ried over my hav­ing joined the Mer­chant Marine,” Ker­ouac wrote in his jour­nal at the time, “but I need mon­ey for col­lege, I need adven­ture, of a sort (the real adven­ture of rot­ting wharves and seag­ulls, winey waters and ships, ports, cities, and faces & voic­es); and I want to study more of the earth, not out of books, but from direct expe­ri­ence.”

In Octo­ber of 1942, after com­plet­ing a voy­age to and from an Army com­mand base in Green­land (which he would lat­er write about in Van­i­ty of Dulu­oz), Ker­ouac left the mer­chant marine and returned to Colum­bia. That was lucky, because most of the Dorch­ester’s crew–more than 600 men–died three months lat­er when the ship was tor­pe­doed by a Ger­man U‑boat. But the rest­less Ker­ouac last­ed only a month at Colum­bia before drop­ping out again and mak­ing plans to return to sea. In Decem­ber of 1942 he enlist­ed in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He want­ed to join the Naval Air Force, but failed an apti­tude test. So on Feb­ru­ary 26, 1943 he was sent to the Naval Train­ing Sta­tion in New­port, Rhode Island. That’s appar­ent­ly when the pho­to­graph above was tak­en of the young Ker­ouac with his mil­i­tary hair­cut. It would have been right around the time of his 21st birth­day.

Ker­ouac last­ed only 10 days in boot camp. As Miri­am Klie­man writes at the Nation­al Archives, “The qual­i­ties that made On the Road a huge suc­cess and Ker­ouac a pow­er­ful sto­ry­teller, guide, and lit­er­ary icon are the same ones that ren­dered him remark­ably unsuit­able for the mil­i­tary: inde­pen­dence, cre­ativ­i­ty, impul­siv­i­ty, sen­su­al­i­ty, and reck­less­ness.” Accord­ing to files released by the gov­ern­ment in 2005, Naval doc­tors at New­port found Ker­ouac to be “rest­less, apa­thet­ic, seclu­sive” and deter­mined that he was men­tal­ly unfit for ser­vice, writ­ing that “neu­ropsy­chi­atric exam­i­na­tion dis­closed audi­to­ry hal­lu­ci­na­tions, ideas of ref­er­ence and sui­cide, and a ram­bling, grandiose, philo­soph­i­cal man­ner.” He was sent to the Naval Hos­pi­tal in Bethes­da Mary­land and even­tu­al­ly dis­charged.

For more on Ker­ouac’s brief adven­ture in the Navy, read Kleiman’s Arti­cle, “Hit the Road, Jack! Ker­ouac Enlist­ed in the U.S. Navy But was Found ‘Unfit for Ser­vice’ ”

Relat­ed con­tent:

Jack Ker­ouac Reads from On the Road, 1959

Jack Ker­ouac’s 30 Rev­e­la­tions for Writ­ing Mod­ern Prose

Arthur Conan Doyle & The Cottingley Fairies: How Two Young Girls Fooled Sherlock Holmes’ Creator

Cottingley_Fairies_1_article

In a pre­vi­ous post, we brought you what is like­ly the only appear­ance on film of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle—an inter­view in which he talks of Sher­lock Holmes and spir­i­tu­al­ism. Although Conan Doyle cre­at­ed one of the most hard­nosed ratio­nal char­ac­ters in lit­er­a­ture, the author him­self lat­er became con­vert­ed to a vari­ety of super­nat­ur­al beliefs, and he was tak­en in by a few hoax­es. One such famous hoax was the case of the so-called “Cot­tin­g­ley Fairies.” As you can see from the pho­to above (from 1917), the case involved what Conan Doyle believed was pho­to­graph­ic evi­dence of the exis­tence of fairies, doc­u­ment­ed by two young York­shire girls, Elsie Wright and her cousin Frances Grif­fiths (the girl in the pho­to above). Accord­ing to The Haunt­ed Muse­um, the sto­ry of Doyle’s involve­ment goes some­thing like this:

In 1920, Conan Doyle received a let­ter from a Spir­i­tu­al­ist friend, Feli­cia Scatcherd, who informed of some pho­tographs which proved the exis­tence of fairies in York­shire. Conan Doyle asked his friend Edward Gard­ner to go down and inves­ti­gate and Gard­ner soon found him­self in the pos­ses­sion of sev­er­al pho­tos which showed very small female fig­ures with trans­par­ent wings. The pho­tog­ra­phers had been two young girls, Elsie Wright and her cousin, Frances Grif­fiths. They claimed they had seen the fairies on an ear­li­er occa­sion and had gone back with a cam­era and pho­tographed them. They had been tak­en in July and Sep­tem­ber 1917, near the York­shire vil­lage of Cot­tin­g­ley.

The two cousins claimed to have seen the fairies around the “beck” (a local term for “stream”) on an almost dai­ly basis. At the time, they claimed to have no inten­tion of seek­ing fame or noto­ri­ety. Elsie had bor­rowed her father’s cam­era on a host Sat­ur­day in July 1917 to take pic­tures of Frances and the beck fairies.

Elsie’s father, a skep­tic, filed the pho­tos away as a joke, but her moth­er, Pol­ly Wright, believed, and brought the images to Gard­ner (there were only two at first, not “sev­er­al”), who cir­cu­lat­ed them through the British spir­i­tu­al­ist com­mu­ni­ty. When Conan Doyle saw them in 1920, he gave each girl a cam­era and com­mis­sioned them to take more. They pro­duced three addi­tion­al prints. The online Muse­um of Hoax­es details each of the five pho­tos from the two ses­sions with text from Edward Gard­ner’s 1945 Theo­soph­i­cal Soci­ety pub­li­ca­tion The Cot­tin­g­ley Pho­tographs and Their Sequel.

These pho­tos swayed thou­sands over the course of the cen­tu­ry, but arch-skep­tic James Ran­di seem­ing­ly debunked them for good when he point­ed out that the fairies were ringers for fig­ures in the 1915 children’s book Princess Mary’s Gift Book, and that the prints show dis­crep­an­cies in expo­sure times that clear­ly point to delib­er­ate manip­u­la­tion. The two women, Elsie and Frances, final­ly con­fessed in the ear­ly 1980s, fifty years after Conan Doyle’s involve­ment, that they had faked the pho­tos with paper cutouts. Watch Ran­di and Elsie Wright dis­cuss the trick­ery above.

 

fairy_51

The daugh­ter and grand­daugh­ter of Grif­fiths pos­sess the orig­i­nal prints and one of Conan Doyle’s cam­eras. Both once believed that the fairies were real, but as the host explains, they were not sim­ply cred­u­lous fools. Through­out much of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, peo­ple looked at the cam­era as a sci­en­tif­ic instru­ment, unaware of the ease with which images could be manip­u­lat­ed and staged. But even as Frances admit­ted to the fak­ery of the first four pho­tos, she insist­ed that num­ber five was gen­uine. Every­one on the show agrees, includ­ing the host. Cer­tain­ly Conan Doyle and his friend Edward Gard­ner thought so. In the lat­ter’s descrip­tion of #5, he wrote:

This is espe­cial­ly remark­able as it con­tains a fea­ture quite unknown to the girls. The sheath or cocoon appear­ing in the mid­dle of the grass­es had not been seen by them before, and they had no idea what it was. Fairy observers of Scot­land and the New For­est, how­ev­er, were famil­iar with it and described it as a mag­net­ic bath, woven very quick­ly by the fairies and used after dull weath­er, in the autumn espe­cial­ly. The inte­ri­or seems to be mag­ne­tised in some man­ner that stim­u­lates and pleas­es.

I must say, I remain seri­ous­ly uncon­vinced. Even if I were inclined to believe in fairies, pho­to num­ber five looks as pho­ny to me as num­bers one through four. But the Antiques Road­show appear­ance does add a fun new lay­er to the sto­ry and an air of mys­tery I can’t help but find intrigu­ing, as Conan Doyle did in 1920, if only for the his­tor­i­cal angle of the three gen­er­a­tions of Grif­fiths who held onto the leg­end and the arti­facts. Oh, and the appraisal for the five orig­i­nal pho­tos and Arthur Conan Doyle’s cam­era? Twen­ty-five to thir­ty-thou­sand pounds—not too shab­by for an ado­les­cent prank.

Josh Jones is a free­lance writer, edi­tor, and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him @jdmagness

What Entered the Public Domain in 2013? Zip, Nada, Zilch!

2013whatcouldhavebeencollage2Last year, key works by James Joyce and Vir­ginia Woolf final­ly entered the pub­lic domain, at least in Europe. (Find them in our col­lec­tions of Free eBooks and Free Audio Books.) This year, we got pret­ty much bup­kis, espe­cial­ly if we’re talk­ing about the Unit­ed States. Over at the web­site run by The Cen­ter for the Study of the Pub­lic Domain at Duke Uni­ver­si­ty, they write:

What is enter­ing the pub­lic domain in the Unit­ed States? Noth­ing. Once again, we will have noth­ing to cel­e­brate this Jan­u­ary 1st. Not a sin­gle pub­lished work is enter­ing the pub­lic domain this year. Or next year. In fact, in the Unit­ed States, no pub­li­ca­tion will enter the pub­lic domain until 2019. Even more shock­ing­ly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Con­gress can take back works from the pub­lic domain. Could Shake­speare, Pla­to, or Mozart be pulled back into copy­right? The Supreme Court gave no rea­son to think that they could not be.

The Cen­ter then goes on to enu­mer­ate the works that would have entered the com­mons had we lived under the copy­right laws that pre­vailed until 1978. Under those laws, “thou­sands of works from 1956 would be enter­ing the pub­lic domain. They range from the films The Best Things in Life Are FreeAround the World in 80 DaysFor­bid­den Plan­et, and The Man Who Knew Too Much, to the Phillip K. Dick’s The Minor­i­ty Report and Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Jour­ney into Night, to sem­i­nal arti­cles on arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence.” Have a look at some of the oth­ers, sev­er­al of which appear in the mosa­ic above.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Lawrence Lessig’s Last Speech on Free Cul­ture. Watch it Online.

Lawrence Lessig Speaks Once Again About Copy­right and Cre­ativ­i­ty

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 5 ) |

Watch Raymond Chandler’s Long-Unnoticed Cameo in Double Indemnity

Philip Mar­lowe’s cre­ator Ray­mond Chan­dler did not, to put it mild­ly, seek out the lime­light. Any biog­ra­phy of that most assid­u­ous­ly stud­ied noir nov­el­ist can tell you so, but none can tell you that, albeit for less than a minute, Chan­dler appeared in a clas­sic of the sil­ver screen. The books have a good excuse for leav­ing out that strik­ing­ly unchar­ac­ter­is­tic detail: it took cinephiles decades to notices the cameo. “More than 60 years after its release, a French cin­e­ma his­to­ri­an and two US crime-writ­ers almost simul­ta­ne­ous­ly hap­pened on the same bizarre dis­cov­ery — that Ray­mond Chan­dler, uncred­it­ed and pre­vi­ous­ly unno­ticed, has a tiny cameo in Dou­ble Indem­ni­ty,” writes the Guardian’s Adri­an Woot­ton. “On 14 Jan­u­ary, the Amer­i­can mys­tery writer Mark Cog­gins, tipped off by anoth­er writer, John Bill­heimer, post­ed the news on his web­site, Rior­dan’s desk, while the French jour­nal­ist Olivi­er Eyquem, wrote about on his blog on March 30.”

While I per­son­al­ly rec­om­mend using this rev­e­la­tion as an excuse to watch Bil­ly Wilder’s immor­tal James M. Cain adap­ta­tion again in its entire­ty, you can view a clip of Chan­dler’s brief appear­ance in it above, which includes a slow-motion instant replay. “We will prob­a­bly nev­er know whose idea it was it to put Chan­dler in front of the cam­era, or if it took a few drinks to get him in the mood,” writes the Los Ange­les Times’ Car­olyn Kel­logg about this rare cin­e­mat­ic glimpse of the writer who did so much to earn Los Ange­les its place on the pulp-lit map. “And no one has suc­cess­ful­ly deci­phered the cov­er of what he’s read­ing, which would be nice to know too.” Alas, from this footage of lit­tle more than a seat­ed Chan­dler look­ing up from a book, we can expect to derive no seri­ous insights into his life or work; for those, we’ll need to go right back to the biogra­phies.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Ray­mond Chan­dler & Ian Flem­ing in Con­ver­sa­tion (1958)

Ray­mond Chan­dler: There’s No Art of the Screen­play in Hol­ly­wood

The Adven­tures of Philip Mar­lowe: The Radio Episodes

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on lit­er­a­ture, film, cities, Asia, and aes­thet­ics. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast